The clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous systematic review and meta-analysis to gain a better understanding of the clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain. METHODS: To update our 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases from 2011 until January 2023, using our previous search strategy. We included prospective inception cohort studies if they reported on participants with acute (< 6 wk), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) or persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) nonspecific low back pain at study entry. Primary outcome measures included pain and disability (0-100 scale). We assessed risk of bias of included studies using a modified tool and assessed the level of confidence in pooled estimates using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We used a mixed model design to calculate pooled estimates (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of pain and disability at 0, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. We treated time in 2 ways: time since study entry (inception time uncorrected) and time since pain onset (inception time corrected). We transformed the latter by adding the mean inception time to the time of study entry. RESULTS: We included 95 studies, with 60 separate cohorts in the systematic review (n = 17 974) and 47 cohorts (n = 9224) in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias of included studies was variable, with poor study attrition and follow-up, and most studies did not select participants as consecutive cases. For the acute pain cohort, the estimated mean pain score with inception time uncorrected was 56 (95% CI 49-62) at baseline, 26 (95% CI 21-31) at 6 weeks, 22 (95% CI 18-26) at 26 weeks and 21 (95% CI 17-25) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the subacute pain cohort, the mean pain score was 63 (95% CI 55-71) at baseline, 29 (95% CI 22-37) at 6 weeks, 29 (95% CI 22-36) at 26 weeks and 31 (95% 23-39) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the persistent pain cohort, the mean pain score was 56 (95% CI 37-74) at baseline, 48 (95% CI 32-64) at 6 weeks, 43 (95% CI 29-57) at 26 weeks and 40 (95% CI 27-54) at 52 weeks (very low-certainty evidence). The clinical course of disability was slightly more favourable than the clinical course of pain. INTERPRETATION: Participants with acute and subacute low back pain had substantial improvements in levels of pain and disability within the first 6 weeks ( moderate-certainty evidence); however, participants with persistent low back pain had high levels of pain and disability with minimal improvements over time (very low-certainty evidence). Identifying and escalating care in individuals with subacute low back pain who are recovering slowly could be a focus of intervention to reduce the likelihood of transition into persistent low back pain. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42020207442.

Effectiveness of interferential current in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no systematic review assessing the effectiveness of interferential current (IC) in patients with low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of IC in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: The databases PUBMED, EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and SCIELO were searched. Randomized controlled trials reporting pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain, in which IC was applied were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were considered eligible for this systematic review (pooled n = 1367). Main results showed moderate-quality evidence and moderate effect sizes that IC probably reduces pain intensity and disability compared to placebo immediately post-treatment (Pain: MD = -1.57 points; 95% CI -2.17, -0.98; Disability: MD = -1.51 points; 95% CI -2.57, -0.46), but not at intermediate-term follow-up. Low-quality evidence with small effect size showed that IC may reduce pain intensity (SMD = -0.32; 95% CI -0.61, -0.03, p = 0.03) compared to TENS immediately post-treatment, but not for disability. There is very low-quality evidence that IC combined with other interventions (massage or exercises) may not further reduce pain intensity and disability compared to the other interventions provided in isolation immediately post-treatment. CONCLUSION: Moderate-quality evidence shows that IC is probably better than placebo for reducing pain intensity and disability immediately post-treatment in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of the psychosomatic questionnaire for children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain into Brazilian-Portuguese.

BACKGROUND: Psychosomatic symptoms seem to influence both the onset and development of pain. There is lack of Brazilian-Portuguese questionnaires that measure psychosomatic symptoms in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Psychosomatic Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents into Brazilian-Portuguese and English and test the measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version. METHODS: The translation and cross-cultural adaptation (from Dutch to Brazilian-Portuguese and English) followed six steps. Interviews were conducted in 33 Brazilian children and adolescents. We also recruited 107 children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain from schools to test the measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version. The questionnaire was completed twice with a 7-day interval. Ceiling and floor effects, missing data, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error and construct validity were assessed. RESULTS: We recruited 140 children and adolescents from public and private schools. During the cross-cultural adaptation process, no major difficulty answering and understanding the questionnaire were reported by children and adolescents. The questionnaire did not show ceiling or floor effects and had minimal missing data (0.37%). Internal consistency by the Cronbach's Alpha was 0.69. Test-retest reliability by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.84). The smallest detectable change was 6.5 points out of 18 points. We observed a moderate correlation of 0.54 (p<0.01) with the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale, consistent with our a-priori hypothesis. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Psychosomatic Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents has acceptable measurement properties and is a good option for assessing psychosomatic symptoms in clinical practice and research.

Meditation for adults with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to determine the effectiveness of meditation for adults with non-specific low back pain. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of meditation in adults with non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers rated risk of bias using the PEDro scale and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. RESULTS: We included eight trials with a total of 1,234 participants. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that meditation is better than usual care for disability at short-term (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI = -0.42 to -0.02). We also found that meditation is better than usual care for pain intensity at long-term (SMD = -0.28; 95% CI = -0.54 to -0.02). There is no significant difference for pain intensity between meditation and minimal intervention or usual care at short and intermediate-term. We did not find differences between meditation and minimal intervention for disability at intermediate-term or usual care in any follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: We found small effect sizes and moderate-certainty evidence that meditation is slightly better than minimal intervention in the short-term for disability. Low-certainty of evidence suggests that meditation is slightly better than usual care for pain in the long-term. Meditation appears to be safe with most trials reporting no serious adverse events.

Smell tests can discriminate Parkinson's disease patients from healthy individuals: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory impairment is common in Parkinson's disease (PD). The authors aimed to identify the clinical tests used to assess olfactory function and examine their ability to distinguish PD with different disease duration from healthy individuals with physiological aging. METHODS: Cross-sectional studies published until May 2020 that assessed the olfaction of individuals with PD using search terms related to PD, olfactory function, and assessment were searched on PubMed, PsycInfo, Cinahl, and Web of Science databases. RESULTS: Twelve smell tests were identified from the reviewed studies (n = 125) that assessed 8776 individuals with PD. Data of 6593 individuals with PD and 8731 healthy individuals were included in the meta-analyses. Individuals with PD presented worse performance than healthy individuals, regardless of the smell test used. The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) was used by most studies (n = 2310 individuals with PD) and presented smaller heterogeneity. When the studies were subclassified according to the years of PD duration, there were no significant differences. CONCLUSION: All smell tests were able to discriminate the olfactory function of PD from that of healthy individuals, although the UPSIT was widely used. The abnormal olfaction was not related to the disease duration. Systematic review protocol registration (PROSPERO/2020-CRD42020160878).

Low back pain prevalence in Sao Paulo, Brazil: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and the burden of LBP is expected to increase in coming decades, particularly in middle-income countries. There is a lack of large and high-quality studies investigating the prevalence of LBP in Brazil. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the point, one-year, and lifetime prevalence of non-specific LBP in adults from the city of São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: This community-based, cross-sectional study recruited 3000 participants in flow point locations randomly selected from census sectors of São Paulo. Interviews and self-administered questionnaires were used to estimate point prevalence, one-year prevalence, and lifetime prevalence of LBP. RESULTS: The estimate of point prevalence was 9.8% (95% CI: 8.8, 11.0), one-year prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI: 46.3, 49.9), and lifetime prevalence was 62.6% (95% CI: 60.8, 64.3). One-year and lifetime prevalence were higher in females, obese people, people insufficiently active and sedentary, current smokers, people who are exposed to repetitive movements, crouched or kneeling position, people dissatisfied with their job, people a little bit or very stressed, a little bit or very anxious, and a little bit depressed, and people with good and fair or poor general health. Lifetime prevalence was also higher in people exposed to standing positions and exposure to carrying weight. CONCLUSIONS: The high point, one-year, and lifetime prevalence of LBP in Brazil indicates that there is a need for coordinated efforts from government, the private sector, universities, health workers, and civil society to deliver appropriate management of LBP in middle-income countries.

The mediating effect of pain catastrophizing on pain intensity: The influence of the timing of assessments.

BACKGROUND: Pain catastrophizing underpins several psychosocial theories of pain, but there is limited evidence to support the proposal that changes in pain catastrophizing cause changes in pain. Results from mediation analyses have conflicting results, and one reason for these might be the timing of the assessment of pain catastrophizing. This study aimed to test the effect of the timing of the assessment of pain catastrophizing on its mediating role on pain intensity. METHODS: Causal mediation analysis using data from a randomized controlled trial which included 100 participants with chronic low back pain. The trial found that clinical hypnosis, compared to pain education, reduced worst pain intensity and pain catastrophizing. In model 1, we used data from 2-week follow-up for pain catastrophizing and 3-month follow-up for pain. In model 2, we used data from 3-month follow-up for both pain catastrophizing and pain. RESULTS: The intervention had a significant average total effect on pain (-1.34 points, 95% CI -2.50 to -0.13). The average causal mediation effect was significant when pain catastrophizing, and pain were measured at the same time (-0.62 points, 95% CI -1.30 to -0.11) but not significant when pain catastrophizing and pain intensity were measured at different times (-0.10 points, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The timing of the assessment influenced the mediating role of pain catastrophizing on pain intensity. These results raise questions on the casual role that pain catastrophizing has on pain intensity. Psychosocial interventions such as clinical hypnosis can reduce pain intensity even when there has been no change in pain catastrophizing.

Do not make clinical decisions based on abstracts of healthcare research: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the reporting quality of healthcare abstracts and inconsistencies between abstracts and full texts. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This systematic review included overviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) that summarized data of healthcare abstracts on reporting of abstracts and consistency of abstracts with the full text. Searches were performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases from 1900 to February 2019. Two authors screened the overviews and extracted the data. All analyses were descriptive and divided into two main groups: abstracts' reporting quality and abstracts' consistency with the full text. Abstracts were considered poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text if more than 5% of abstracts' information was not fully reported or not consistent with the full text. RESULTS: 27 overviews analyzing 5,194 RCTs and 866 SRs were retrieved for reporting quality of abstracts. A total of 22 overviews analyzing 2,025 RCTs and 551 SRs were included for consistency of abstracts with the full text. Abstracts across all healthcare areas presented poor reporting quality and were inconsistent with the full texts, with results and conclusions as the most inconsistent sections. CONCLUSION: Abstracts of healthcare RCTs and SRs have shown a large room for improvement in reporting quality and consistency with the full text. Authors, journal editors and reviewers need to give the highest priority to this matter.

Smell tests to distinguish Parkinson's disease from other neurological disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Olfactory impairment has been considered for differential diagnosis in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. The authors aimed to identify the tests used to assess the olfactory function in PD patients and examine these tests' ability to distinguish them from other neurological disorders.Areas covered: Cross-sectional studies published until May 2020 comparing the olfactory function of PD patients to other neurological disorders were searched on PubMed, PsycInfo, Cinahl, and Web of Science databases using search terms related to PD, olfactory function, and assessment. Five thousand three hundred and four studies were screened, and 35 were included in the systematic review. Six smell tests that evaluated a total of 1,544 PD patients were identified. Data of 1,144 patients included in the meta-analyses revealed worse smell performance than individuals with other neurological disorders, such as progressive supranuclear palsy and essential tremor, but not with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder.Expert opinion: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test was the most used test to assess the olfactory function of PD. Smell loss was worse in PD than in some neurological disorders. The smell tests' ability in differentiating PD from other neurological disorders still deserves more attention in future studies. Protocol register (PROSPERO/2018-CRD42018107009).

Photobiomodulation Therapy is Able to Modulate PGE2 Levels in Patients With Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is responsible for triggering increased biomarkers levels. In this way, photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) may be an interesting alternative to treat these patients. One of the possible biological mechanisms of PBMT involved to decrease pain intensity in patients with musculoskeletal disorders is modulation of the inflammatory mediators' levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PBMT compared with placebo on inflammatory mediators' levels and pain intensity in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospectively registered, randomized triple-blinded (volunteers, therapists, and assessors), placebo-controlled trial was performed. Eighteen patients with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited and treated with a single session of active PBMT or placebo PBMT. The primary outcome of the study was serum prostaglandin E2 levels and the secondary outcomes were tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6 levels, and pain intensity. All outcomes were measured before and after 15 minutes of treatment session. RESULTS: PBMT was able to decrease prostaglandin E2 levels at post-treatment compared with placebo, with a mean difference of -1470 pg/ml, 95% confidence interval -2906 to -33.67 in patients with LBP. There was no difference between groups in the other measured outcomes. Patients did not report any adverse events. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that PBMT was able to modulate prostaglandin E2 levels, indicating that this may be one of the mechanisms involved in the analgesic effects of PBMT in patients with LBP. Trial registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT03859505. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Evaluation of the efficacy of an internet-based pain education and exercise program for chronic musculoskeletal pain in comparison with online self-management booklet: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial with assessor-blinded, 12-month follow-up, and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is one of the main causes of years lived with disability and generates the highest cost of health care among chronic pain conditions. Internet-based treatments have been shown to be an alternative for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, in addition to reducing barriers such as travel, high demands on the public health system, lack of time, lack of insurance coverage for private care, and high costs for long-term treatment. The aim of this clinical trial is to develop and test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of, an internet-based self-management program based on pain education and exercise for people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: This is a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, two-arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation comparing the Internet-based pain education and exercise intervention with a control group that will receive an online booklet. One hundred and sixty patients will be recruited from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Follow-ups will be conducted in post-treatment, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The conduct of the study, as well as the evaluations and follow-ups will be carried out entirely remotely, through online platforms and telephone calls. The primary outcome will be pain intensity at post-treatment (8 weeks) measured using the 11-item Pain Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will be biopsychosocial factors presents in the chronic musculoskeletal pain condition. Costs due to chronic musculoskeletal pain will be also measured, and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will performed. DISCUSSION: Our hypothesis is that internet-based pain education and exercise will be better than an online booklet in reducing pain and improving biopsychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In addition, we believe that there will be good acceptance of patients for the internet-based intervention and that internet-based intervention will be more cost effective than the online booklet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04274439 , registered 18 February 2020).

Exercise treatment effect modifiers in persistent low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 3514 participants from 27 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise. METHODS: In parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers. RESULTS: We received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.7 (-14.1 to -7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.2 (-13.2 to -7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers-these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64.

Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information and are inconsistent with the full text: An overview study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regards to completeness of reporting, spin (i.e., interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in data with the full text. DATA SOURCES: The search was performed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016. STUDY SELECTION: This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese. DATA EXTRACTION: Completeness of reporting was assessed using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a SPIN-checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text were assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (Kappa statistics). Methodological quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score. DATA SYNTHESIS: The mean number of fully reported items for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1 (SD 2.4) out of 15 points and the mean number of items with spin was 4.9 (SD 2.6) out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=0.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean Kappa 0.20 SD 0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the SPIN-checklist (mean Kappa 0.47 SD 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The abstracts were incomplete, with spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies.

Do prognostic variables predict a set of outcomes for patients with chronic low back pain: a long-term follow-up secondary analysis of a randomized control trial.

Objective: The objective was to explore for universal prognostic variables, or predictors, across three different outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). We hypothesized that selected prognostic variables would be 'universal' prognostic variables, regardless of the outcome measures used. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a previous randomized controlled trial comparing the McKenzie treatment approach with placebo in patients with chronic LBP. Ten baseline prognostic variables were explored in predictive models for three outcomes: pain intensity, disability, and global perceived effect, at 6 and 12 months. Predictive models were created using backward stepwise logistic and linear multivariate regression analyses. Results: Several predictors were present including age, expectancy of improvement, global perceived effect; however, we only identified baseline disability as a universal predictor of outcomes at 6 months. The second most represented universal predictor was baseline pain intensity for outcomes at 12 months. Discussion: Only two predictors demonstrated an association with more than one outcome measure. High baseline disability predicts multidimensional outcome measures at 6 months in patients with chronic LBP while baseline pain intensity can best predict the outcome at 12 months. Nevertheless, other predictors seem to be unique to the outcome used. Level of evidence: 2c.

Effectiveness of interventions for non-specific low back pain in older adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Systematically review the literature about all available interventions to manage non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) in older adults (≥60 years). DESIGN: We searched the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases reference lists for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing interventions for NSLBP. Two independent reviewers extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and completeness of the description of interventions. RESULTS: Eighteen (RCTs) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Evidence about interventions to manage NSLBP in older adults is weak. Very low to moderate quality evidence showed that complementary health approach (i.e., manual therapy, acupuncture, mindfulness, yoga), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), education, exercise or pharmacological agents were not effective to produce a clinically significant reduction in pain and disability at short-term and intermediate-term compared to sham, usual care or minimal intervention. Interventions were moderately well-described according to the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) and the risk of bias was moderate 6.4 points on the 10-point PEDro Scale (SD=1.44). CONCLUSION: Evidence about interventions for NSLP in older adults is limited and new studies are highly likely to change these results. This result may impact healthcare providers due to the lack of effective evidence based interventions, patients, and policy makers that will expend financial resources with interventions that provide in the best scenario a not significant improvement of the clinical symptoms. Researchers need to consider the importance of designing clinical trials targeting older adults and examine possible outcome modifiers present in this population allowing the recommendation of more efficacious evidence-based interventions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42016036686).

Hypnosis Enhances the Effects of Pain Education in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

The potential benefits of combining pain education (PE) with clinical hypnosis (CH) has not yet been investigated in individuals with chronic pain. A total of 100 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain were randomized to receive either: 1) PE alone, or 2) PE with CH. Outcomes were collected by a blinded assessor at 2 weeks and 3 months after randomization. The primary outcomes were average pain intensity, worst pain intensity (both assessed with 11-point numeric rating scales), and disability (24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2 weeks. At 2 weeks, participants who received PE with CH reported lower worst pain intensity (mean difference = 1.35 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .32-2.37) and disability (mean difference = 2.34 points, 95% CI = .06-4.61), but not average pain intensity (mean difference = .67 point, 95% CI = -.27 to 1.62), relative to participants who received PE alone. PE with CH participants also reported more global perceived benefits at 2 weeks (mean difference = -1.98 points, 95% CI = -3.21 to -.75). At 3 months, participants who received PE with CH reported lower worst pain intensity (mean difference = 1.32 points, 95% CI = .29-2.34) and catastrophizing (mean difference = 5.30 points, 95% CI = 1.20-9.41). No adverse effects in either treatment condition were reported. To our knowledge, this is the first trial showing that additional use of hypnosis with PE results in improved outcomes over PE alone in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. PERSPECTIVE: This study provides evidence supporting the efficacy of another treatment option for teaching patients to self-manage chronic low back pain that has a relatively low cost and that can be offered in groups.

Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain.

To standardize outcome reporting in clinical trials of patients with nonspecific low back pain, an international multidisciplinary panel recommended physical functioning, pain intensity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as core outcome domains. Given the lack of a consensus on measurement instruments for these 3 domains in patients with low back pain, this study aimed to generate such consensus. The measurement properties of 17 patient-reported outcome measures for physical functioning, 3 for pain intensity, and 5 for HRQoL were appraised in 3 systematic reviews following the COSMIN methodology. Researchers, clinicians, and patients (n = 207) were invited in a 2-round Delphi survey to generate consensus (≥67% agreement among participants) on which instruments to endorse. Response rates were 44% and 41%, respectively. In round 1, consensus was achieved on the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a for physical functioning (78% agreement) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity (75% agreement). No consensus was achieved on any HRQoL instrument, although the Short Form 12 (SF12) approached the consensus threshold (64% agreement). In round 2, a consensus was reached on an NRS version with a 1-week recall period (96% agreement). Various participants requested 1 free-to-use instrument per domain. Considering all issues together, recommendations on core instruments were formulated: Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a or 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for physical functioning, NRS for pain intensity, and SF12 or 10-item PROMIS Global Health form for HRQoL. Further studies need to fill the evidence gaps on the measurement properties of these and other instruments.

Adherence to Back Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines by Brazilian Physical Therapists: A Cross-sectional Study.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional observational study. OBJECTIVES: (i) to investigate whether Brazilian physical therapists make clinical decisions for patients with low back pain based upon clinical practice guidelines and (ii) to determine whether the physical therapists are able to recognize differential diagnoses of low back pain associated with red or yellow flags. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Early adherence to clinical practice guidelines may accelerate recovery and reduce the costs associated with low back pain. It is unknown whether Brazilian physical therapists follow clinical practice guidelines to make their clinical decisions in the treatment of patients with low back pain. METHODS: The sample consisted of physical therapists from two Brazilian physical therapy associations. The data were collected via electronic survey and face-to-face interviews. The survey was composed of six hypothetical clinical cases of low back pain, which served as a basis to evaluate clinical decisions and adherence to clinical practice guidelines for low back pain. The study participants had 27 possible answers for each clinical case and could choose up to five answers. The results were analyzed in three ways: full adherence, partial adherence, or no adherence to the recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 530 physical therapists were invited and 189 participated in the study (response rate = 35.6%). Full adherence to the guidelines was low for all six cases (rates ranging from 5%-24%). Partial adherence to the guidelines was higher when compared with full adherence (rates ranging from 32%-75%). The participants were more likely to identify differential diagnoses associated with yellow flags than with red flags. CONCLUSION: Brazilian physical therapists are not using the best available evidence in their clinical decision making for patients with low back pain. Wider dissemination of clinical practice guidelines should be urgently undertaken. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Pilates for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain is a major health problem worldwide. Interventions based on exercises have been the most commonly used treatments for patients with this condition. Over the past few years, the Pilates method has been one of the most popular exercise programmes used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of the Pilates method for patients with non-specific acute, subacute or chronic low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus from the date of their inception to March 2014. We updated the search in June 2015 but these results have not yet been incorporated. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers as well as six trial registry websites. We placed no limitations on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of Pilates intervention in adults with acute, subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain. The primary outcomes considered were pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent raters performed the assessment of risk of bias in the included studies using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We also assessed clinical relevance by scoring five questions related to this domain as 'yes', 'no' or 'unclear'. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and for effect sizes we used three levels: small (mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale), medium (MD 10% to 20% of the scale) or large (MD > 20% of the scale). We converted outcome measures to a common 0 to 100 scale when different scales were used. MAIN RESULTS: The search retrieved 126 trials; 10 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and we included them in the review (a total sample of 510 participants). Seven studies were considered to have low risk of bias, and three were considered as high risk of bias.A total of six trials compared Pilates to minimal intervention. There is low quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared with minimal intervention, with a medium effect size at short-term follow-up (less than three months after randomization) (MD -14.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.91 to -9.19). For intermediate-term follow-up (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomization), two trials provided moderate quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared to minimal intervention, with a medium effect size (MD -10.54, 95% CI -18.46 to -2.62). Based on five trials, there is low quality evidence that Pilates improves disability compared with minimal intervention, with a small effect size at short-term follow-up (MD -7.95, 95% CI -13.23 to -2.67), and moderate quality evidence for an intermediate-term effect with a medium effect size (MD -11.17, 95% CI -18.41 to -3.92). Based on one trial and low quality evidence, a significant short-term effect with a small effect size was reported for function (MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.97) and global impression of recovery (MD 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.30), but not at intermediate-term follow-up for either outcome.Four trials compared Pilates to other exercises. For the outcome pain, we presented the results as a narrative synthesis due to the high level of heterogeneity. At short-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, two trials demonstrated a significant effect in favour of Pilates and one trial did not find a significant difference. At intermediate-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, one trial reported a significant effect in favour of Pilates, and one trial reported a non-significant difference for this comparison. For disability, there is moderate quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Pilates and other exercise either in the short term (MD -3.29, 95% CI -6.82 to 0.24) or in the intermediate term (MD -0.91, 95% CI -5.02 to 3.20) based on two studies for each comparison. Based on low quality evidence and one trial, there was no significant difference in function between Pilates and other exercises at short-term follow-up (MD 0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.64), but there was a significant effect in favour of other exercises for intermediate-term function, with a small effect size (MD -3.60, 95% CI -7.00 to -0.20). Global impression of recovery was not assessed in this comparison and none of the trials included quality of life outcomes. Two trials assessed adverse events in this review, one did not find any adverse events, and another reported minor events. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any high quality evidence for any of the treatment comparisons, outcomes or follow-up periods investigated. However, there is low to moderate quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention for pain and disability. When Pilates was compared with other exercises we found a small effect for function at intermediate-term follow-up. Thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercises. The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs.